ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, December 3, 1995 TAG: 9512060026
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CHRISTOPHER O. BIRD
IT'S PROBABLY just the rebellious nonconformist in me, but I've always felt that political parties do more harm than good. How? By tempting elected officials to align their views with their parties, instead of with the voters who elected them. Political parties are the ultimate "interest groups."
When we elect Republicans, for example, why do we have to buy the entire traditional GOP agenda, instead of just the parts that most people support? It's like having to buy a car with options you don't want, because that's the only way they'll sell it to you.
Most Americans want balanced budgets. We want tougher education standards. We feel that if criminals have rights, so should noncriminals. We expect people to work for a living. We're fed up with lawsuits that pay millions to drivers who spill hot coffee in their laps.
But most Americans aren't screaming for tax cuts, as Republicans would have us think. If we can afford to cut taxes, then we can afford to pay off government debt first. And if reducing capital-gains taxes isn't a tax break for the rich, I don't know what is.
Nor are most Americans clamoring for prayer in school. And neither pro-abortionists nor anti-abortionists hold a majority in this country. When public opinion is evenly divided on something, the politicians should do just what they usually do anyway - nothing.
When we elect Democrats, we get officials whose knees jerk and mouths begin to argue whenever certain myths are challenged. It's like the emperor's new clothes: Some things a good Democrat just won't admit publicly, even if he suspects something's not right.
But we voters know that deficit spending has to catch up with us eventually. That the welfare system has made poverty worse, not better. That high-school seniors shouldn't receive diplomas if they don't know what country is north of the United States or that the Earth goes around the sun. And that if you let a two-time murderer or rapist out of jail, he's going to do it again.
So why do we need political parties? I suppose they narrow the field of candidates before an election - otherwise we'd have too many. But a simpler and more democratic alternative would be to just require those interested in running to collect a certain number of signatures on a petition.
Arguably, political parties help ensure that one candidate gets a majority, instead of just a plurality. But that's only true in a two-party system. And if there are no viable independent candidates running. The party system didn't help Bill Clinton get a majority.
In any case, you could ensure a majority through a runoff election. In today's computerized world, you wouldn't even need a runoff. When voting, you could simply indicate both your first and second choices. If your first choice lost out, the computer would turn to your second pick.
In practice, of course, politicians veer away from party lines during elections. That's when they tell people what they want to hear. Call it wishy-washy, but ironically, elections are the only time politicians do what they should be doing - speaking up for the things their constituents believe in.
After elections, they revert to party lines. Just ask Bill Clinton. He was a "new" Democrat until the election was over. Then we never saw a president renege so fast on so many promises.
The political-party system polarizes us needlessly and unproductively. It's the reason Gov. Allen is determined to emulate the entire Reagan agenda, whether we want it or not. It's why Democrats in the Virginia legislature try to keep Allen from enacting anything at all, even the things most voters want. Only one thing gets overlooked in this emotional, not rational, fight: the will of the people.
Christopher O. Bird, a retired Air Force officer, lives in Riner.
LENGTH: Medium: 72 linesby CNB